Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation,
and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain
the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?

A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate
reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and
impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the
context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya
in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that
all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New
School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the
Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in
meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long
as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of
veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.

We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator,
since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must
be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there
exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept
of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must
understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an
individual level.

Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a
unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic
impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the
tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source
as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its
pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make
up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing
more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle
consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences
take shape.

In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations
emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from
there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the
stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this
source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha,
is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to
wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.

This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to
conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had
to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the
"Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text
by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be
negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point
of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical
examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be
able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an
"interpretable" sutra.

Q: Interest im the discoveries of modern astrophysics and the "Big bang" theory reveal both a
great fascination in the cosmos and a probing interrogation by members of our generation into
their origins, their destiny and the meaning of their existence. The "Big bang" theory has had
a significant impact on our way of looking at matter and nature; it has introduced considerable
conceptual innovations. The formation of the structures of the universe, which function in
interdependence, and which new research continues to reveal, is a seemingly endless source
of wonder. Like all spiritual traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet
Buddhism rejects the idea of creation. Why?

Most Western scientists think that life and consciousness are a magnificent result of the
universe's material evolution, and yet they know neither how nor why matter emerged in such
a way as to fulfill the conditions necessary to engender life and consciousness. What they do
know is that these conditions are very strict, yet have nevertheless been fulfilled in our universe
in an astonishing way. You have a very different point of view on this subject. Would you
therefore speak to us about consciousness in its relation to matter and the universe?

A: Why is there no creation possible in Buddhism? It has been said that one cannot find living
beings at the becoming of the universe for the essential reason that causes have no beginning.
If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to
consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that
its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness;
this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or
from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not
exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on
causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When
those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no
beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is
therefore not possible.

Let us now consider a particular phenomenon, a glacier for example: it does indeed have a
beginning. How was it created? The outside world appears as a result of the acts of sentient
beings who use this world, These acts, or karmas, in turn originate in the intentions and
motivations of those beings who have not yet taken control of their minds.

The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an
agent. It is said that consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here between
gross consciousness and subtle consciousness. Many gross consciousnesses appear as
dependents of the physical aggregates, of the body. This is evident when you consider the
different neurons and the functioning of the brain, but just because physical conditions are met
does not mean that this is enough to produce a perception. In order for a perception which will
have the faculty to reflect and know an object to arise, it must have a consubstantial cause. The
fundamental consubstantial cause, of the same substance as its result, will in this case be the
subtle consciousness. It is this same consciousness or subtle mind which penetrates the parental
cells at the moment of conception. The subtle mind can have no beginning. If it had one, the
mind would have to be born of something that is not the mind. According to the Kalacakra
Tantra, one would have to return to the particles of space to find the fundamental consubstantial
causes of the external physical world as well as of the bodies of sentient beings.

Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a
period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is
destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this
void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed.
It is in these particles of space that we find the fundamental consubstantial cause of the entire
physical world. If we wish to describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of
beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which the natural potential of
different chemical and other elements constituting that universe was able to take shape from
these space particles. It is on the basis of the specific potential of those particles that the
structure of this universe and of the bodies of the beings present therein have come about. But
from the moment the elements making up the world begin to set off different experiences of
suffering and happiness among sentient beings, we must introduce the notion of karma -- that
is, positive and negative acts committed and accumulated in the past. It is difficult to determine
where the natural expression of the potential of physical elements ends and the effect of karma
-- in other words, the result of our past acts -- begins. If you wonder what the relation might
be between karma and this external environment formed by natural laws, it is time to explain
what karma is.

Karma means, first of all, action. We distinguish one type of karma which is of a mental nature,
a mental factor of volition or intention. There also exist physical and oral karmas. To
understand the connection between these physical, oral, or mental karmas and the material
world, we must refer to the tantric texts. The Kalacakra Tantra in particular explains that in our
bodies there are to be found, at gross, subtle, and extremely subtle levels, the five elements
which make up the substance of the external world. It is therefore in this context, I believe, that
we must envision the connection between our physical, oral, and mental karmas, and the
external elements.

The material on this page has been collected from
the recent book, "Beyond Dogma: The Challenge of the Modern World", (c) 1996 North Atlantic Books, translated
by Alison Anderson and Marianne Dresser from talks given
during His Holiness's visit to France end 1993.
E-MAIL: All enquiries, comments and
suggestions welcome.